State backs school on flag dispute

A decision this summer by the state Department of Education supporting the display of the rainbow flag at Bedford's John Glenn Middle School appears to have settled a controversy that has divided the town.

In a finding dated July 26, the Department of Education said the school did not violate any laws by flying the flag, which is seen as a symbol of gay rights, or by holding a school assembly that included references to homosexuality. The letter was sent to school administrators and parents who brought the issue to the department's attention, but was not made public.

The multicolored flag was hung last fall among more than 50 national flags, as part of a result of a school-mandated ''Respect for Differences Day." The day featured an assembly that focused on accepting differences and decrying violence and bullying. It also included a skit about a homosexual student who was being harassed.

But some parents were upset about the flag, and noted that when they were asked to contribute money to pay for the flags, the rainbow flag was never mentioned. Others complained that they were not told in advance that the assembly would touch on sexuality.

After a contentious public hearing in April, when the School Committee voted to keep the flag flying, the Waleyko family, which has three children in the middle school this year, took a complaint to the Board of Education.

The Waleykos were upset because they were not notified that their children would be forced to attend the assembly, despite a letter to the school exempting them from courses that taught sex education. ''It's an issue we are very disturbed about," Randall Waleyko said in an interview. ''We think those things should be discussed in the home and not in the public schools."

Superintendent Maureen LaCroix disagreed. ''I think the key is the day of respect and the hanging of the flag were not about sexuality," she said. ''I think that distinction was very clear. It was about teaching tolerance for all."

Under Massachusetts General Law 72, Section 32A, every city, town, region or vocational school district maintaining a curriculum ''which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues shall adopt a policy ensuring parental/guardian notification."

In the Department of Education's final decision, Commissioner David P. Driscoll maintains that the school did not violate the law by providing sexual education but, in the assembly, only referred to the discrimination of those individuals of a different orientation. It further stated that the flag did not teach sex education.

''We are pretty disappointed." Waleyko said of the July 26 verdict. He and his wife, Genovaite, believe the state did not look at the issue rigorously enough.

''If you read [the decision] closely, it sets limits," Genovaite Waleyko said of the wording.

The finding reads: ''[The Waleykos] now claim that [the assembly] primarily involved human sexual education or human sexuality issues."

''They go by the word 'primarily,' " she said. ''According to those laws, you can hang anything you want in any place."

Gail Valbona, another parent who opposes the flag's presence, also focused on the Department of Education's wording.

''The spirit of the law is undermined by the word 'primarily,' " Valbona said. ''It seems that this whole thing and the reason why they have gone against the Waleykos is the word 'primarily.' At least that's how I read it.

''How much is 'primarily?' " she said. ''It creates a loophole."

But LaCroix, who expected approval from the Department of Education, said the school system followed Massachusetts guidelines.

''We were being consistent with the goals we have in the school system for tolerance and also consistent with Department of Education regulations about tolerance and violence," LaCroix said. ''I never felt what we were doing was teaching sexuality."

Valbona, who said she does not have a child in middle school yet, said she was surprised at the finding. ''I thought for sure the Waleykos had a case," she said. ''When I read the law, I thought the school was wrong in not notifying the parents of the content [of the assembly]. Not just that there was an assembly, but the assembly would contain references to someone's sexual orientation."

Some parents would not have cared, she said; others would have complained or kept children home from school.

''It is my view that it is age-inappropriate and that is my objection," Valbona said. ''I still think no matter whether they were in their rights or not, I still think it was age-inappropriate."

LaCroix countered that there will always be classes that are age-inappropriate, no matter what the subject. ''I think that's true in curriculum," she said. ''I think that's a key role that parents play."

In the wake of the ruling, the Waleykos are weighing various options, including moving out of town. ''We looked at houses and everything," Randall Waleyko said. ''We are still considering it because of this issue."

Regarding his complaints about teaching sexuality in the schools, Waleyko said, ''We could follow up further, but we don't know what we are going to do. As far as the flag goes, there's nothing we can do about that."